Was Kirkwood shooting a “disaster”? (UPDATED)
A compelling read in today’s paper visits Kirkwood on the city’s first council meeting since the fatal Feb. 7 shooting.
The meeting was filled with tensions as residents decried the decision to continue with an election for mayor that will feature only one name on the ballot - Councilman Art McDonnell.
The name of slain Councilman Connie Karr was removed from the ballot for mayor by court order earlier this month.
A group calling itself Kirkwood Coming Together for a Brighter Future is irked by the decision to continue with the election, claiming the council is using the shooting to consolidate their political power.
But, according to today’s story, Steven Garrett, attorney for the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners, said it appears the city has no choice but to press on with the scheduled election.
State law allows for an election to be postponed in the event of a “disaster,” Garrett said. A candidate’s death, no matter how tragic, does not meet the legal definition, he said.
But is that accurate?
The statute in question, state code section 115.024, allows a local election board to lobby a panel of appeals court judges to postpone an election. Here’s how the law defines disaster:
…any catastrophic or natural disaster, statewide or nationwide emergency, man-made disaster, civil disorder, insurgency, bioterrorism attack, terrorist attack, or enemy attack.
Would a deadly rampage fit that description?
UPDATE: Garrett called me this afternoon to clarify the Election Board’s stance. The law, as he sees it, does more than require simply the occurrence of a disaster to postpone an election.
The event, Garrett says, has to actually interfere with the ability to hold the election on the scheduled day — like a storm or terrorist attack that would keep voters from getting to the polls.
“It doesn’t matter how horrible it is,” Garrett says. “The question is does it preclude you from having election.”
No, it would not.
All those things listed would be events that effected MASSES of people. As in effect to the point where they could not vote.
MAYBE had this tragic even taken place… say… the day before an election… then maybe it would fit. As it stands… not in the least.
I disagree… This certainly was a “Man-made” Disaster
This is definitely a man made disaster. The City Attorney and fellow councilmen have political reasons for not wanting to pursue this, once again going with the voice of the few and disenfranchising many. I would appreciate the City Attorney not speaking for the citizens of Kirkwood when he stated that it was the “overwhelming sentiment” that the election go on as planned. Where did he get his data? It is disingenuous for Mrs. Hessel to state that there is nothing that can be done to postpone the election without listening to the council of many.
This may be a disaster to the people of Kirkwood, but it isn’t a disaster which falls within the obvious intent of the law. Canceling or postponing an election is a VERY big deal. The law is intended to permit the postponing of an election when it is truly not possible to do it. While it is certainly a difficult time in Kirkwood right now, people are going about the business of life - eating and drinking, shopping, going to work and church. Clearly, voting in an election is also possible, and therefore, it needs to be done.
TSquare: I don’t see “MASSES” of people being a prerequisite.
This matter should go to the judicial panel, where it will be decided to put the election off for a few months.
As you all can see… with the update, my logic holds.
If Art McDonald were to withdraw as mayoral candidate from the election, then there would have to be another election date. Since there has to be a special election to fill Connie Karr’s council seat, then there would be time others to file and Art to refile. I’m sure that there are ways to give the citizens of Kirkwood a fair election. After all, this is supposed to be a democracy, not a monarchy.
With a hasty meeting by the council that to the citizens’ knowledge was not announced, the council members decided to ask Mr. Karr if he wanted his wife’s name removed from the ballot. Mr. Hessel said it was posted but this has not been verified.If they had not asked for her removal, it was the last day to remove her name. It is questionable if the meeting met the sunshine rules. If Connie Karr was elected, what would have then happened? What are the Board of Election rules? This did happen when Mr. Carnahan passed away. What were the council members’ motivation for this rushed meeting?
There is no question in my mind that there have deep divisions and a feeling of disenfranchisement among citizens of Kirkwood for quite a long time. The manner in which this whole election situation has been handled will only deepen those divisions.
There must be a solution to this stand off. Mr. McDonnell should request that his name be removed so that another election can be held. Holding this election in April will divide the city of Kirkwood even more than it already has been.
First, the city attorney and members of the council violated the Sunshine Law by holding a meeting with out advance public notice, without citizens input, and no meeting minutes have been produced.
Second, the council meeting held this past week, 2/21 did not the requirement of quorum. They must have 4 council members PHYSICALLY present, not via telephone. The city charter makes no provision for attendance via telephone or proxy voting.
With the above violations of the law, the St. Louis County Election Commission and the MO Ethics Commission should step in.
I would argue that the “man-made disaster” provision is the one that does apply in this case - the deaths of the candidate plus 4 other senior city officials in a single incident would seem to be a “disaster” of the magnitude contemplated by the State statute, particularly where the “disaster” has the effect of rendering an election a meaningless, noncontested event. That would seem to be exactly the result the legislature had in mind when it drafted the law. Its not the same as if a candidate had simply died of natural causes as he suggests - the loss of so many members of city government opens up a lot of issues and concerns that perhaps should result in a rescheduling of the election and the introduction of meaningful choices.
I am an attorney from Kansas City that has lobbied the legislature for many years. I know none of the parties involved in this matter unless you count Senator Gibbons or Representative Stream.
As difficult as I am certain it is for many to understand Mr. Garrett’s reading of the statute is likely the correct one. The statute is intended to address situations that effectively disenfranchise voters. In the past we have had candidates die. In no instance in Missouri that I can recall have we postponed an election because of it.
There is a way in my mind for the city to come together. Senator Gibbons and Representativde Stream could call all the interested parties together and explain that they want to move the city forward from this trajedy. They could defend the bravery of the city attorney for fighting off the assailent. They could defend Mr. Garrett’s reading of the statute which is correct. They could then ask all interested parties that in the interest of moving forward not backward that they support a bill that they will file in both houses of the legislature to amend the statute to allow for a later election at the August primary election. My bet is that the bill would sail through the legislature.
This is a classic example of the difference between law and justice. It is sad, but true, that in any tragic situation, there are those who stand ready to benefit through no unlawful action on their own part. Unless those who hold power in such situations act with altruistic, self-restraint and magnanimity, they will reap those benefits, but at the expense of community good-will. No matter what the law says, there is a choice to be made in this matter. I wouldn’t place a bet either way about how this will be resolved.